Hadje Cresencio Sadje, a Filipino scholar doing Ph. D. studies at the University of Vienna, contributes to global contextual methodologies through his monograph, Grassroots Asian Theologies: Doing Pentecostal Theology in the Philippine Context. Sadje attempts to integrate Liberation theology and Pentecostal theology in the Philippine context (10), noting that both recognize grounded realities and contextual experiences as loci for theologizing. He agrees with Asian Pentecostal theologian Simon Chan, whose seminal book, Grassroots Asian Theology, argued for the ecclesial experience in theologizing (12). Whereas Chan offered a Pan-Asian approach, Sadje particularizes his study within the Filipino context. He does this by analyzing Filipino theologies, both Pentecostal and Liberationists, to draw out an alternate theological method for developing a holistic grassroots Filipino theology.

In the book, Sadje constructs his alternate theological method by offering an exposition that spans four chapters. In chapter one, he discusses Chan’s methodological propositions for developing Asian grassroots theology. He notes Chan’s critique of elite theologies vis-à-vis Pentecostal grassroots theologies (11). As Sadje points out, Chan argues for replacing elite theologies (not grounded on the grassroots lived realities) with the ecclesial experience (derived from the lived realities of both theologians and laity).

In chapter three, Sadje reviews Filipino Liberation theology, especially Eleazar Fernandez’s magnum opus Towards a Theology of Struggle, which offers a theological reading of the Philippines considering its colonial past and socio-political challenges (64-65). As in the previous chapter, Sadje compares Chan’s ecclesial experience with Fernandez’s hermeneutic of the underside (67-69). Interestingly, Chan and Fernandez agree that “theologizing is a community affair” (67). Fernandez, however, specifies the interlocuters of theologizing as “the poor, marginalized, and oppressed Filipino people” (69).

Finally, in chapter four, Sadje converges ideas deduced from previous chapters to offer “alternative guidelines for doing grassroots Asian theologies” (75). After explaining the challenges in doing Filipino theology, he then adopts the Critical Asian Principle (CAP) espoused by the Associate for Theological Education in Southeast Asia (ATESEA) (78). Despite criticisms against the CAP, Sadje affirms its continuing relevance in developing holistic grassroots theologies. Moreover, he offers four considerations in developing Filipino grassroots theology: the necessity of contextualization, political and economic engagement, ecological/environmental response, and ecumenical-interreligious engagement (90).

In the final analysis, Sadje points to the overlap between Liberation and Pentecostal theology, commenting that both lean toward grassroots theologizing to develop a living theology. Indeed, local theologies today generally lean towards theologizing with grounded realities in mind. For Sadje, Chan’s ecclesial experience, Ma’s Pentecostal method, Fernandez’ theology of struggle, and ATESEA’s Critical Asian Principle, when cumulatively considered, may lead to deeper theological insights in the Filipino context (90-91).

Sadje’s expositions are insightful. He does a fair job of promoting the move toward contextualization and proposing a framework for constructing theologies in the Filipino context. As a way forward, I encourage sufficient consideration of Pentecostal distinctives in his guidelines. To be considered a successful integration of Liberationist and Pentecostal systems, the inclusion of Pentecostalism’s trialectic (Spirit-Scripture-Community) in biblical interpretation can be added into the loci theologici. Sadje can delve deeper into this oft-discussed framework as he attempts to integrate both systems into a holistic grassroots method.

Despite the above notations, Sadje’s work contributes significantly to developing methodologies for Filipino theologizing. His monograph helps to fill theological lacuna in Asia and urges Filipino Pentecostals to be much more involved in public theology.

Reviewed by Lora Angeline E. Timenia

Is Word-Faith theology only rotten apples?

In the midst of our last phase placing articles and reviews from all of our print issues online at PneumaReview.com, I came across a response we received and published almost ten years ago. If I remember how this went, the editorial committee felt we had to turn away a submission this writer made to us because of how he was responding in anger instead of trying to win over those that disagreed with him. Although we cannot usually explain our reasons for turning something away, and believe me when I say I never enjoy writing those rejection letters, we saw potential in this writer and pointed out some things he could improve. When we received his thoughtful response, we knew he had taken to heart what we had tried to communicate. Here is his response:

Thank you for looking at the article I submitted. I am now inclined to think that a more ‘humble’ piece of writing, coming from a little amateur theologian like me, would perhaps be more palatable for your website readers. At the time of writing, I had felt the need to produce something approaching a polemic in order to defend my continued theological studies from… well, from various people. And I believe my article is still useful for that purpose. But Pentecostal/charismatics, in general, need to be more gently wooed out of their errors. I have spent some time discussing various issues (in a friendly fashion) with some of the older WordFaithers and traditional Pentecostals (and trying to learn from them too) over the past year, and I think they’re just plain tired of having their heads smacked by aggressive apologists and supercilious theologians! Usually at the heart of the various errors and excesses we are all too familiar with, there is some valid insight or understanding—it may even be distinctive. When we fail to discern it, affirm it and extricate it from the general mess it has got itself into in our critiques, I think we probably end up doing more harm than good. I suspect that, more often than not, people tenaciously cling to various errors (regardless of how much we criticize) because there is something true that they have seen somewhere at the bottom—though they have perhaps made erroneous inferences from it.

I mention all this because you aren’t running an apologetics website per se, but a resource site for Pentecostals and Charismatics, in the hope of nurturing doctrinal maturity and curbing excesses. It has occurred to me that perhaps something gentler might be called for than my original article. I will try my hand on a revised article and submit it again. Thanks for the consideration.

– GTA

Although this comment was originally published in the print edition of the Spring 2005 issue of Pneuma Review, I think it is still a good reminder for me.

I do remember spending many long hours in numerous libraries researching the destructive errors I found in Word of Faith teachings. At the time, it had not been that long since God had freed me from a sectarian mindset. I was arming myself to argue against the ugliness I saw. Yet there were several individuals, mentoring voices including Ron Messelink, Paul King, William De Arteaga, Geir Lie and Jon Ruthven, who challenged me to look deeper than the charges laid against the Word-Faith movement by heresy hunters. No one claimed that the movement was not full of poor theology or even serious error on the fringes, though there was disagreement about how deep those fringes were. Ultimately, my layman’s research led me to conclude that despite serious problems, there were emphases and insights that could be gleaned from the movement. The new challenge I saw was what writer GTA pointed out, that while it is difficult to draw those caught up with error towards the truth, it is impossible to do so if they think you are angry with them and when they know they have seen something true despite the mess. I continue to learn how this is a good way to look at many controversial subjects, particularly when it is all too easy to exclude others because they believe differently.

If you agree that learning how to share the truth in love is a life long calling, join me in asking for a fresh filling of the Holy Spirit to carry it out.